Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Supervenience is a dependency relation that requires a non-trivial explanatory or modal connection between the supervening and base properties.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Standard definitions of supervenience require only covariation; adding explanatory demands goes beyond the concept itself.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Modal connection may be too strong: numerical identity facts supervene on spatiotemporal facts but lack explanatory basis.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Requiring non-trivial explanation creates vagueness about what counts as 'trivial,' making the account empirically untestable.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Mere covariation without explanation fails to distinguish supervenience from brute coincidence or correlation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Modal connection ensures supervening properties couldn't differ without base property differences, grounding necessity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Mental properties supervening on physical properties requires explanatory link; otherwise physicalism lacks coherence.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.